text:
Is it legal to bring your own survival gear aboard an airliner?
Is it legal to bring your own survival gear aboard an airliner?
Considering the sobering article by William Langewiesche that is appearing in the July 2019 edition of "The Atlantic", one might want to consider bringing:

Oxygen canister with regulator and pressure breathing mask
Parachute

The oxygen canister may be an issue. The parachute will be one if it doesn't fit in the overhead or under the seat. Life raft will absolutely be an issue because of it's size. Except the parachute, all those are available on the aircraft already, why bring your own?

Except that they aren't-- ok, possibly "life raft" should be deleted from the question; it's not really practical all things considered and may not always be necessary.

There is oxygen available at every seat...

But, it doesn't help for very long at 40,000'.

The oxygen on board an aircraft will provide you enough oxygen at 40,000 feet to live long enough for the aircraft to descend to a breathable altitude. It isn't there so you can grab it and jump out... Maybe if you describe the situation, because the on-board oxygen is perfectly fine at any altitude the aircraft can fly at. You seem to be asking about bailing out...

Its not really practical to expect to bail out of an airliner

It should be noted that even if you had an oxygen canister on MH370, it probably wouldn't do you any good.  (according to popular theory) The flight was presumably depressurized around 1a.m. local time, when many of the passengers were drifting off to sleep anyway.  They wouldn't think anything of getting sleepy and putting their heads down.  Even if you used oxygen, and parachuted successfully, you'd end up in the middle of the ocean.  Your best chance at survival was actually on the plane (however doomed it eventually was)

Hey, why don't they sell parachutes before boarding. Not that you need it just that there are people that will buy it anyway. Or rent it for the flight to get priority jumping.

@Jan Do you by any chance work at Ryanair?

This wikipedia article lists a handful of cases in addition to the famous DB Cooper incident where people have parachuted from an airliner successfully-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airstair

Just found a related question-- https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/556/what-items-could-you-bring-on-board-to-maximise-your-chance-of-survival-in-an-em

Yes, it's legal to bring a parachute, if you can fit it within the permitted carry-on limits. It has been done.
No, it's not going to save you. You are not going to be able to jump out of an airliner. Unless your name is D.B.Cooper, and you're hijacking the last flying 727 with a rear exit door, that is. Again.
No, it's not legal to bring a pressurized container onboard a passenger jet. When you want to fly with a pressurized tank (say, a pony or deco bottle for tec diving), you have to unscrew the valve and bring it separately. This is to ensure you can't bring explosives or poisons inside the tank.
Yes, if you could bring an oxygen or nitrox container (less fire hazard than pure O2), combined with a firefighter SCBA, it could improve your odds of survival in the very marginal event of a fire-related accident, in which the plane manages to land intact enough for you to don it.
No, none of these are practical measures. If you want to somewhat improve your odds without impractical means, wear comfortable leather shoes without heels, cotton clothing, and a fanny pack for your papers, so that you're not tempted to reach for your luggage in an emergency.
One specialized item that has been considered for inclusion on airliners as safety equipment is fire hoods. There are portable smoke hoods that can give you a couple minutes' protection for evacuation. They don't include air or oxygen, only a simplistic filter, which is still a solid step above just holding your breath.

Why do you say nitrox vs pure o2?

The minimum PPO2 you need to stay alive is 9-10 kPa, conscious 11-14 kPa, and fully capable ~16 kPa. The pressure at FL300 is 30 kPa, which means 100% oxygen would put you well above sea level PPO2, and EAN50 would keep you fully functioning. Even at FL400, it would keep you alive, and conscious as you descend. And if a depressurized plane isn't descending, it doesn't matter, you're done anyway. Meanwhile, EAN50 is much less of a fire hazard than O2, and can be safely used with lighter aluminum regulator hardware.

I'd also mention that you wouldn't even recognize the need for the oxygen tank in a lot of cases... you'd just get sleepy and then it's all over.

Some are. I have traveled with a parachute as carry-on. Got some strange looks from the crew and the pax who recognized what it was, but there's no rule against that. I also regularly bring along my EPIRB emergency GPS-enabled beacon, which works worldwide, also in carry-on. Nobody ever questions that either. Depending on where I travel I also bring water sanitizing tablets and a Lifestraw, and pills for the occasional case of (insert_your_favorite_dead_chief's_name_here) Revenge.

How would that work, considering the doors can't be opened in flight?

@J.Hougaard Huh? How would what work? I said I brought it as a carry-on, not that I intended to use it to get out of the airplane. I just wasn't interested in risking losing an expensive Softie parachute.

In the US you can carry approved portable oxygen concentrators on board, which would probably be of no use in a depressurization scenario. Compressed or liquid oxygen containers are not allowed. This is governed by 14 CFR § 125.219 - Oxygen and portable oxygen concentrators for medical use by passengers.


text:
How are takeoff and stall different from each other?
Technically what differences are there between a take off and a stall?
From what I understand, when stalling the aircraft will lose lift when a certain angle is met. On a takeoff the aircraft will pitch the nose up but the effects are different.
What affects this? Is it the effect of the relative airflow or something else?

Stall is explained here and takeoff here.

Specifically, stall is the point at which raising the angle of attack any further creates less lift. Rotation during a take-off run will use angles of attack lower than that (or else their flight will be very short.)

Also, stall's occur when the turbulent flow of air causes disruptions in the lift being generated.

Also see Is there always a stall if you exceed a certain angle of attack?

@reirab That should be the answer +1

On take-off the pitch is increased to increase lift, but only to a point well before stall occurs. An aircraft's minimum speed is defined by the maximum lift it can create before the flow over the wings stalls, and the high-pitch attitude is only attained when the aircraft flies faster than that. As soon as lift is sufficient for lift-off, further pitch increases are increasing the flight path angle. If the aircraft keeps accelerating during the initial climb, stalling is impossible.
Technically, both are very different. Their only commonality is that they involve high angles of attack.

A stall, technically, is a departure of turbulent airflow over the top of the wing due to an extreme angle of attack. When this happens the wing no longer generates lift as designed. In most "everyday" aircraft scenarios the most common reason for a stall is a combination of insufficient speed and too high a nose pitch. Aerobatic aircraft including fighter jets can encounter stall scenarios in other ways, including intentionally (several maneuvers involve intentional stalls; the 3-D equivalent of intentionally entering a skid in a car).
When taking off, an aircraft typically does not exceed the maximum angle of attack for its current speed; if it did, the aircraft would stall and likely crash. The aircraft instead accelerates to a speed in excess of the forward stall speed of the aircraft, and then gently pitches upward to gain altitude. To the average passenger, especially a first-timer, it may not look or feel "gentle" to have the aircraft pitch 15-20 degrees up in the air, but during that maneuver the AOA remains very shallow.
To assist heavier aircraft (or those designed for faster cruise speeds) in getting off the ground quickly and/or at a lower speed, the flaps can be positioned in a moderate setting, often specifically designated as a "take-off" setting, to increase the lift the wing generates at lower speeds. This happens through a combination of increasing the effective upper surface of the wing, and also directing the airflow leaving the wing downwards. In a "clean" configuration (the most aerodynamic setup for cruising, which includes no flaps), the minimum speed at which the wing can still generate lift will be higher.

Stall is usually the departure of turbulent airflow. When pressure gradients are steep, laminar flow is hard to maintain. The skid analogy is apt.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Why was there a rattling noise coming from the left engine of A319?
I recently flew on an Airbus A319. When boarding the aircraft from the front entrance we passed in front of the left engine. The fan blades were spinning and there was a rattling noise (like when a chain is being rolled up) coming from the engine.
Is this normal? What causes this sound? Is it the fan blades that are somehow loose?

Yes indeed, the fan blades are loose and rattle in their sockets when the fan is freewheeling in the wind. Once the engine is running, centrifugal forces will make sure they do not rattle any longer.
The base of the fan blades have a shape like a fir tree, and they slide into sockets on the fan disk with a loose fit. When the fan is spinning slowly, they will sit on one side of the socket on the way up, and gravity will pull them into the opposite side on the way down. The rattling is caused by one blade after another falling into that opposite position once they rotate over the top.

Sorry for the bad picture (source) - I could not find a better one right now.
There are concepts to move to bladed disks ("blisks"), but while they are lighter and don't rattle, they are a headache once a single blade is damaged and needs to be replaced. Therefore, the single, easily removable fan blades are the solution of choice in all gas turbines.

It should also be mentioned that that fan blades are made of such a material that their 'rattling' will not cause any degradation or wear.

Interesting. See also A closer look at the front fan of the RB211-22B and an explanation of the rattling noise.

Does this happen on both of the engines available for the A319/320/321? What about the A318 Pratt & Whitney engine? I've never noticed this on anything but the A320 and derivatives thereof; does it happen on other aircraft?

@gsnedders: I am not aware of an engine where this ratting doesn't occur. The fan has to windmill, though.

@gsnedders On parked 747-100 and -200 aircraft with P&W engines in a nice breeze, you can get a symphony so to speak with all four engines rattling away. Makes quite a racket.

Does expansion because of high temperatures play a role in this rattling as well? I.e. the fans expand and fit snuggly when they're operating and shrink and rattle when they cool down.

@BartArondson: The thermal expansion of the fan is negligible, but is substantial in the turbine section (the part of the engine that is exposed to the hot combustion gases). There, free play is larger to allow for thermal expansion.

How serious is the rattle? Can it cause a fan blade to fall out and enter the engine's compressor?

@shortstheory: No way! It is just a gentle clicking when the blade assumes a new position. No lengthwise motion is involved, and those blades are tough, so they won't break off even after a million such clicks.

I also heard it on an Airbus A320 and told the steward about it. He said it's designed that way to deal with metal expansion. This is the first time I heard that noise however.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Pay for your Training
What are the pros and cons for "paying for your training"?  Specifically, there are companies out there that will sell the right seat for so many dollars an hour for those aspiring pro pilots to build hours.  Is this a bad thing?  Are there benefits to this approach.  Is it simply a function of the competition new pilots face (not considering the rumors of pilot shortages we are about to face)?  Is it unethical?

Could you please edit this question to make it less based on opinion and more asking for verifiable facts?  (For instance, "is this a bad thing" and "is it ethical" are very subjective and could have a wide range of answers).  As it stands this question does not fit the Stack Exchange model: Please take a look at [ask].  That being said, this is part of our industry and I would like to see a not quite so opinion-based question on the site.  :)

We have the same issue on the PM exchange.  But sometimes questions are still ambiguous and only have opinion based answers.  I have written to that effect on the other site.  Not sure how to edit this.  I do not think there is an answer with verifiable facts on this topic, but I know there are a lot of opinions on this in the industry.

@DavidEspina cost/benefit analysis, risk/reward comparisons, etc. etc. come to mind.

Pay for training (PFT) is a bad thing.  I am specifically referring to operations in which you pay to go through initial aircraft training and fly right seat.  Yes, you not only pay for 121 initial (BAD!), you also pay to fly from the right seat.  The bottom line is you are occupying a seat that the company should be paying you to be in!
Part 121 pilots are in a constant struggle over wages.  Companies paint a picture that the only reason they take quarterly losses is that they pay the flight crews too much.  Negotiating capital has to be spent to combat this.  These pay for job (PFJ) operations hurt our negotiating positions on wages, as do the pilots that come out of these programs who some might argue are more likely to support concessions (after all, they'll fly for free!).
It is hard to combat these kind of programs because flying is more than a job for a lot of people. It is a dream and a passion and some of these people are more than happy to pay for the "privilege" of flying a beech 1900 from the right seat.
You asked for Pros and Cons, so:
Pros

You learn an aircraft and log some SIC and TT, maybe even turbine.

Cons

You are helping depress wages across the industry.
You are enabling the company to avoid paying a wage to half of its pilots.
You will probably carry a stigma when you move up in the 121 world, at least at the regional level (FO's I flew with were very reluctant to name their former operation if it happened to be [REDACTED])

Don't go the PFJ route.  Find something to do that will pay you a wage to fly and build hours to get into a regional 121 seat.  Once you have your commercial (and cfi) certificates, you shouldn't be paying to fly any more.  You'll also find once you get into the 121 world that paying to accelerate your way there  perhaps wasn't worth it.

Given that nobody is going to pay you to build hours towards a type rating, for many people it's a choice between paying for time or not getting a job at all. And yes, that's a sad situation, brought about by the glut of people out of work (and still a glut of new people entering the field with high hopes of magnificent wages for very little work brought on by romantic stories about the life of the pilot).

If you goal is to fly for a 121 carrier, who cares about a type rating?  The airline is going to take care of that for you, you just need the hours to get in.  Plenty of people will pay you to get those hours.  At 250 hours you can instruct and perhaps find a powerline/pipeline patrol or perhaps an SIC job.  At 500 hours you are more insurable and more opportunities open up, including single pilot VFR 135.  You are right that nobody is going to just give you money to build time, but plenty of people will pay you to perform a job flying.  Ping me in chat if you want to discuss.

maybe. But most operators expect you to have X hours on type before allowing you to captain something. And getting those hours is what people are asked to pay for. Not saying it's right, but if enough operators do it, there's no way to get hours without submitting and going with the program unless you buy your own aircraft and most people simply don't have the money for that (and it'd likely cost more than paying for the hours too).

And conversely if there weren't people willing to pay for something the rest of us get paid for, then those positions wouldn't exist and these same companies would pay you for doing a job.  If you go to one of those programs you are being taken advantage of, and its a fair bit of marketing that you to believe you need to do it.  The truth is that you don't.  In the 4 years I sat in a 121 cockpit I flew with less than 10 people that went through a PFJ program.  As a 121 CA if I had to choose between two 500 hour pilots that were ether a CFI or a PFJ to be my SIC, I'd take the CFI any day.

One aspect that concerns me is the "student's" status.  If they are paying to be  there, they probably aren't an employee:  They probably aren't covered by Workman's comp if injured on the job.  They may have no Union representation, couldn't get unemployment benefits, aren't paying towards Social Security, etc.


text:
Can you identify this aircraft at Chilliwack(YCW)?
This aircraft is sitting at YCW, with no visible registration numbers.  Can you identify it?

It's a De Havilland DH104 Dove. It did have a registration of N4913V but it was cancelled in 2012.
The Dove is an airliner that can seat 8 passengers, and 542 were produced from 1946 to 1967.

Short, yet perfect answer. Pit that OP isn't able to accept it.


text:
Is ATC connected to the Internet & why?
I've just read an article from SkyNews just here where they said it's expected that one day air traffic control will be the target of cyber attacks.
So my question is "Is ATC connected to the Internet and why ?"
Are they just connected (if they are) to exchange information between the various ATC Centers and in this case I think they use VPN connections with military grade encryption or do they use Internet for other reasons ?

Note that even if they were physically separated from the internet, they would not be guaranteed to be safe from cyber attacks: http://www.wikipedia.org/en/Stuxnet

@DanielF : By military grade I mean the crypto-system used by government / organisations or by the army and not used by common people (typically the length of the key used will be longueur to increase security).      To thanby : You're right any system is safe at 100% but by separating your network from the Internet you will increase your security.

The Air Traffic Control system does transmit information over the internet. The Air Traffic Control system has a number of components, some of which transmit information over the internet. According to Review of Web Applications Security and Intrusion Detection in Air Traffic Control Systems, Office of Inspector General, DoT,

..Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has increasingly turned
  toward the use of commercial software and Internet Protocol (IP) -based
  technologies to modernize ATC systems.

Note that the ATC is not connected directly to the internet. It is the behind scene connections, that are routed through the internet. According to a security professional,

... when most managers say there is no connection to the Internet, they are unaware of maintenance connections. Behind the scenes there are almost always semi-direct connections through routers shared between the control system and business systems that can be exploited

Actually, the use of internet for sharing of information is increasing. FAA's NextGEN modernization involves a significant amount of information transmission over the internet. According to US Government Accountability Office,

NextGen is a modernization effort begun in 2004 by FAA to transform the
  nation’s ground-based ATC system into a system that uses satellite-
  based navigation and other advanced technology. ... These
  new technologies will use an Internet Protocol (IP) based network to
  communicate.

Image from GAO report on Air Traffic Control
This increasing connection to the internet does increase the associated risks. From the same GAO report:

... the shift to NextGen technologies will require FAA to replace its proprietary, relatively isolated ATC computer systems with information systems that interoperate and share data throughout FAA’s operations and those of its aviation partners. ... These new systems...will also employ digital and Internet-based computer-networking technologies, exposing the air traffic control (ATC) system to new cybersecurity risks.

As to why the ATC is connected to the internet, it basically boils down to ease of operation. According to [NATS], which manages UK airspace,

We ... are now working all over the world within an industry where systems are connected across organisations, countries and continents.

Such an interconnected worldwide system requires a standard platform, which will not be possible (or atleast very difficult to maintain) if a closed, proprietary platform is used.
So, the ATC does use internet, though this is mainly to transmit information. However, I'm not aware of the security systems, though we can be sure that they do have some sort of encryption (If I'm correct, Lockheed Martin supplies the software) and have firewalls to protect the systems.

Note that your first quote, and the one just above the graphics says "These new technologies will use an Internet Protocol (IP) based network to communicate.".  This sounds like a private network using the same protocols and technology, not the internet itself.

You'd be surprised what's connected to the internet. I've been an information security consultant for more than a decade and every time I think I've seen it all I see new levels of foolishness. I would not expect ATC systems to be directly accessible from the internet as that's a very bad idea, but I would not be surprised if it came to light that someone had been dumb enough to do it.
However, you don't have to have systems directly connected to the internet for them to be vulnerable to attack, in fact they don't have to be connected at all. Attackers go after protected targets by gaining a foothold on internet connected systems and using them as jumping off points to other systems. An attacker could be a single person, a small group, or a large, state-sponsored hacking organization.
A very common scenario is that an attacker infects users' personal computers by sending them malware (a virus, trojan horse, worm, etc) in an email, or emailing links to websites which have been compromised. The malware infects a user's computer using vulnerabilities in the operating system or installed applications and allows the attacker to access that computer in a way that the user cannot detect. Once the attacker owns the user's PC he/she can then sniff around the network and compromise other systems, again using vulnerabilities in operating systems and/or applications.
In the case of ATC an attacker could, with the right expertise and resources, penetrate and map out critical ATC computer infrastructure to the point where it could be widely disrupted.
What ATC organizations should be doing is the same as all other organizations which are targets, for example:

patching their systems to make them harder to hack
running regular penetration tests, where professional "white hat" hackers find security holes before the bad guys do
training staff to be aware of suspicious emails
protecting ATC systems using firewalls, two-factor authentication, brokered administration, and other controls

In NATS the operational computers are not connected to the general NATS information systems network. The operational systems also uses communications protocols with limited functionality.

That's a good security measure, but not impossible to jump. Stuxnet used USB keys to successfully distribute malware.

The system I worked on only allowed specifically coded USB drives.  A random drive attached to one of the servers would not be recognised and whoever was caught trying it would be in trouble.  Systems Control would know when engineering had access to the systems and the only reason to attach a drive would be to upgrade software, and that happens roughly twice a year, always on a standby system.  Physical security is strong, engineers always report to system control to gain access and the people know each other well.

That's reassuring to hear @user23614. It may be a good idea to keep those types of details mum unless you're sure you aren't breaching employer confidentiality rules!

This is all very interesting background data about infosec, but the question is whether ATSUs are connected to the internet, and your answer is that you don't know.

Firewalls are old technologies against trivial threats only. Today intrusions use channels that are legitimate, and thus cannot be blocked by firewalls. IPS are the industry standard, and cognitive protection that looks at unusual behaviors at application level, within the network, rather than to isolated packets at the border of the network is also becoming standard.

Firewalls are still very important @mins, attacks on the perimeter are still a serious threat. You are correct in that they aren't the whole story, you need defense in depth.

Short answer: It's complicated.
I am not personally an authority on this subject, but I can point to some information the FAA has released.

System Wide Information Management (SWIM) is the network structure that will carry NextGen digital information. SWIM will enable cost-effective, real-time data exchange and sharing among users of the National Airspace System.

NextGen is the ongoing modernization of the US National Airspace System, so this describes the current plan. Note that controllers are one user group of the National Airspace System.
Security controls are defined in FAA Order 1370.114 - "Implementation of FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure Services and IS Requirements in the NAS". This document is not public.
The "FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) NAS Boundary Protection System (NBPS) User’s Guide Volume II- For Non-NAS Users" (document)

provides  guidance  to  external  system  owners  for  provisioning  IP-based  service connectivity  to  a  National  Airspace  System  (NAS)  system.

Included is this figure:
My head! It's SWIMMING in acronyms...

WMSCR (Weather Message Switching Center Replacement System): Collects, processes, stores, and disseminates textual aviation weather products and NOTAM information.
WARP (Weather and Radar Processor): An enroute weather system that provides Mosaiced Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) information to air
traffic controllers via the Display System Replacement (DSR) and provides meteorological products to the Center Weather Service Unit (CWSU) meteorologists and Traffic Management Specialists (TMU).
NMR (National Airspace Data Interchange Network (NADIN) Message Switching Network (MSN) Rehost): Transmits flight plans. (source)

(gotta love the embedded acronyms.)
So it depends on what you consider "ATC". These are critical systems that support controllers and others. They are 'connected to the internet', albeit through many layers.
Finally, according to this page, updated 10 Jan 2013,

It is the FAA's intent to terminate point to point (local) connections between FAA NAS systems and outside entities as soon as possible and to replace them with connections made via secure gateway.

...implying that there are (or were) (more) direct connections into certain FAA networks, which are being overhauled with the plan described above.
Conclusion
There are many aspects of ATC. One would speculate that systems such as primary and secondary radar are appropriately sand-boxed internally. But clearly certain systems are in some fashion exposed to the internet, at least to expose data for use by others.

"NMR" just blew my mind a little bit...

ATC mostly rely on so-called operational network not directly connected to internet. As mentionned by aeroalias there are links between operational and business networks that might be vulnerable.
There is also a growing trend to interconnect systems to improve throughput, thus increasing exposure. Below is a scheme illustrating collaborative decision making on an airport.
Last but not least, ATC rely on wireless communication between control and planes, which is vulnerable to listening and spoofing. Not internet-based, but yet vulnerable to cyber-attack.

taken from http://www.euro-cdm.org/concept_introduction.php

There have  indeed been attempts to spoof a call to an aircraft  but all of these in the UK at least have failed due to the diligence of pilots and controllers.


text:
How can I scale down a propeller for wind tunnel testing?
I want to scale down my propeller for a wind tunnel testing. But I am unable to find any literature on it.  Please give suggestions.

Suggestions on what? How to make one smaller? Where to manufacture it? Effects of scaling?

Check out page 13 : http://teaching.ust.hk/~civl151/Course%20Notes/dimensionalAnalysis.pdf  Here is some more theory : http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node86.html

The airfoil of the propeller should not change with size if you are scaling it up and down. As long as the airfoil is the same and the proportions are correct relative to both propellers (length, chord, pitch, etc.) that should be all you need to pay attention to.

What about the speed?

The speed of what?

Scaling of it. Should the flow speed in the wind tunnel be the same as that of the full-scale aircraft and the RPM of the scaled propeller the same as the full-scale one? I don't think so.

Wind tunnel testing of wings is done at the same speeds the wing will fly at full size. A tiny aircraft, like a BD-5 or a Cri-Cri, has to fly in the same conditions as a 747-800., A propeller is an airfoil, just like a wing. Why do you think the scaled propeller should be tested differently? There may be a reason to do so, but you haven stated it. Just curious.

I was thinking of the Reynolds number. It depends on speed, but also on the size of the structure.

Ah, I get it now. That will indeed be an issue. Unfortunately, it is beyond my level of knowledge. I did find this paper, which seems to confirm your concerns.
http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/pubs/DetersAnandaSelig-2014-AIAA-2014-2151.pdf

@JanHudec the wind tunnel results will absolutely depends on the similarity parameters. depending on the expected flight conditions, either Reynolds number or mach number will be the more important to replicate in the test


text:
What is the purpose of the translucent tube and dial on JU 52 engine nacelle?
Mounted on top of each JU 52 engine is a translucent tube and a dial (see images).

What is the purpose of the tube and what does it measure?
Does the dial measure (oil or fuel) flow or quantity?
Are these indicators visible at night?

This is the Fuel Gauge.

Direkt auf der Triebwerksgondel sind bei der Ju 52/3m die Treibstoffanzeigen montiert
The fuel guage is mounted directly on the engine pylons on the Ju 52/3m.
AustrianWings

It is suggested that the indicator gives a reading in hundreds of liters (Liter x 100 written underneath).

Source
Visible on the illustration below as Kraftstoffuhr ('Fuel Clock').

My Google foo fails me, but I did find this picture with a caption stating that it's a fuel gauge.
Zooming in on the image suggests that this is plausible
I also found this diagram of the wing fuel storage which shows the gauge.
To read it at night, pilots would use a flashlight.

I can't find any authoratative source.  If I do, I'll come back and edit.


text:
How can pressure pattern navigation be applied to light airplanes?
I want to attempt max range flights in a single engine piston airplane using pressure pattern navigation.  My goal is to achieve greater efficiency than what is published in the POH while still using common cruise settings (ex. 65% at a LOP setting or as published in the POH, usually ROP).  I know pressure pattern flying is employed by GA pilots on long range ferry flights (to Hawaii, for example) but I cannot find practical guidance on how to plan such a flight.  There is plenty of theory and anecdotal information online, and I've read most of it, but very little in the way of practical instruction or calculations.
How would one go about applying PP principles to an actual flight?  My objective is to build a front end user interface using live weather data to plan flights using PP principles.
Hypothetical flight:
Tucson, AZ to McCook, NE at or below 12,500' in an unpressurized 155 KTAS single engine plane with a ~700nm range.  I chose cities that were near the hypothetical plane's max range...could be any city pair.
GA - little piston plane
LOP - lean of peak EGT
ROP - rich of peak EGT

Just as a side note, usually the "maximum range" figures published by aircraft manufacturers don't account for the FAA minimum 30 minutes (or 45, depending how you conduct the flight) of reserve fuel when landing. If you are wanting to attempt this flight in reality, make sure you don't end up landing with empty tanks.

Good point.  A success indicator could be a flight that exceeds the max range as planned using tradational methods while still having legal reserves available upon passing the published max range.

@ymb...agree. That validates the idea that someone can develop their own calculation and use it for GA.

Here is an interesting slide show that may be of some help.
The FAA still does (although extremely rarely from my understanding), issue a flight navigator rating. This rating dates back to the early days before avionics were as sophisticated as they are today. The FAA publishes this handbook (for the rating), Chapter 15 covers pressure pattern navigation and may be what you are looking for.
This document on pressure patterns from a weather standpoint may also be of interest.

I downloaded the Nav Handbook some time ago and read through ch15 a few times. Good info. I'll look at the slideshow when I get to a computer.


text:
Why does Boeing use two different door-types (B757 hinge vs. B767 slide)?
Why did Boeing use a sliding door for the B767?

And why wasn't it used in later Boeing planes?
Edit:
Looking up other airframe manufacturers I realised that the B767 was introduced prior to the B757. And that other airplanes featured slide-up doors as well but the B767 was the last one featuring them. Could it mean it was some kind of fashion of the airplane design until the late 70s?

The 767 photo is a mock up. Is there a photo of real one in real plane?

@vasin1987 sure https://www.sanspotter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/delta_air_lines_767-400_ATL-SAN_trip_report_01.jpg but I did not find one where the door is in the process of opening.

I wouldn't call it fashion. I think what happened was the Concorde/Airbus translating door patents expired between the 767 and the next clean-sheet design, the 777. Now you see the Airbus-style doors on all new jets: 787, SU95, CSeries and E-Jets.

Why don‘t you compile an answer with that knowledge? In any case thanks for this info!

@user71659 - Boeing have a 1972/1974 patent for An aircraft door of the plug type is mounted on three tracks affixed to an airframe for inward and upward movement to open the door..

@RedGrittyBrick McDonnell Douglas was first. Here's the patent for the Airbus style, 1969, beating both of them.

Between the 757 and 767. The 767 is a wide body and has much more crown space than the 757. The 757 did not have the space for the slide up doors. The 757 door is similar but bigger and more complex than the 737 door. Because it is bigger and heavier, the 757 door also has to have powered emergency assist actuators to help open the doors in an emergency.

Outward swinging doors require a great deal of effort to open and close, and can require the operator to potentially lean outside of the aircraft and risk a fall to close.  The 757 door originally had an issue where shorter operators could not get enough leverage to open (see: Making It Fly in the Seattle Times.  Upward doors were used for a while but they are finicky to operate and maintain and if the opening mechanism fails can be very difficult to open in an emergency.
The translating "gooseneck" door was originally designed by Airbus.  The design is simple, reliable and easy to operate.  It has more or less become standard on all new aircraft designs.

I work on the 757, 767 and the Airbus and I can honestly tell you that I despise the 757 door.

I also worked on B757 and heard of flight attendants getting sick days from spraining their back. The outward swinging door required opening before some jetways where in position (or re positioning if they missed and a chance of falling) while the sliding door can always be opened after the jetway is against the aircraft. It is also easier and safer to seal a door for flight that closes with cabin pressure, than against it - less chance of explosive decompression.

Pretty much all passenger doors are "plug" style.  Even ones that eventually swing outside the aircraft usually open inward first to move the seals and latches clear and therefore cannot be opened with a pressure differential.  This is another problem with the early hinged doors, a strong operator can actually unlatch the door against a modest pressure differential.  This has happened on the ground several times where the interior of the aircraft remains pressurized due to a malfunctioning pressurization system.  The door opens violently and has caused at least two fatal incidents.


text:
How do you encode a radial to radial turn in ARINC-424?
I am building my own ATC simulator and for that purpose I need to include several instrument procedures. I have a problem with that particular one:

My problem is on KEA transition, the leg between "RDL 256 KEA" and "RDL 192 ATV" how should the transition be encoded in terms of ARINC-424 path terminator sequences.
Specifically it's the turn from the one leg to the other that bothers me: "RDL 256 KEA" seems to terminate on either 27 DME KEA or RDL 187 ATV. But then what? There is a 20 DME ATV on the next leg that spoils everything. CD (or Course to DME) is not a specific route over the ground so the previous turn won't be able to intercept it. I could either omit the CD part or insert another CR (course to radial) before the CD leg but then I'm not doing what the map says, I improvise. So my question is am I conceiving this wrong, or the IAC is ambiguous in this particular point?

The IAC is not ambiguous, but the translation to ARINC 424 Path Terminators is ambiguous. There are often multiple ways to do it, and sometimes none match exactly the procedure on the chart.

So you fly the KEA transition like this:

Track RDL 265 KEA until crossing RDL 187 ATV or 27 DME KEA
Start a right turn and intercept RDL 192 ATV
Fly RDL192 until intercepting final

As egid said, RDL 187 ATV is a lead radial which is a radial used only to tell you when to start a turn.
As far as 20 DME ATV, it is actually only used for the PELAG transition so you can ignore it in this case.

Lead radial is now understood. The chart has a DME mark right at the same point. Does that mean it can be flown "either way"? As I see it, it can be both course to radial termination and fix to DME. As for the 20 DME ATV, what makes me believe it's part of KEA and not PELAG transition, is the fact that the DME mark is placed slightly before the point the 339 track intersects the RDL 192 ATV.

@SteliosAdamantidis Yes, the start of the turn can be determined determined either way. Generally I find DME to be easier if the aircraft is equipped with it, but will use the lead radial if not. As far as the 20 DME, it shows the turn being completed before it as well, so possibly they use it as a reporting point.

I emailed an ATCO of Athens APP and while he claimed the 20 DME is used by both transitions, he didn't rule out the possibility of the chart being slightly wrong. Anyway the answer covers me, I just wanted to eliminate all doubts.

Just create a PC waypoint at the 20DME and use a Righturn DF with an FO requirement.  Once the CR leg is completed the box with initiate a turn direct to the point and be certain of hitting it.  From there you can TF to the station.  I used to do this for a living.....this is how I would code it for real aircraft.

PC: Airport Terminal Waypoint.
FO: Fly over or overfly.
DF: Direct Fix.

You may extend the acronyms PC, DF and FO

I took the liberty to explain some of the acronyms, feel free to edit if I was wrong.


text:
Which one is considered the departure time of a commercial flight?
I was wondering, the publicly announced departure time of a commercial flight, is it the ETOT (estimated takeoff time) or is it the EOBT (estimated off-block time)? Or maybe some other time?

Ticketing questions would be a better fit on Travel.se

@TomMcW I removed the references to the tickets. Hope it's better now.

The scheduled time is the EOBT. Flights that depart within 15 minutes of it are considered on-time.
Standard taxi times for each airport are included in the scheduled flight time.

Not SOBT? Either way, definitely some form of BLOCK OUT time, rather than TAKE OFF time is what's on the ticket.

@Ralph J Good point. Surely SOBT. Didn't remember the term at all. Main point still remains: off-block, not take-off.

Nice. That's what I thought as well. It would also be nice to include a source of information for completeness.

@Stelios My source is my training, can't name the documents :D

In this document you will find some of the many timestamps used in CDM.
As you can see there, the EOBT is the timestamp displayed in the flight plan.
The time on the ticket usually corresponds to the ETA/ETD which in term should be STOT (scheduled take-off time).
Are you extracting information from a data source or are you just curious?

Welcome to aviation SE. I'm just curious. That part of the answer could have better been a comment on the question. :)

Answer is wrong. The ticket shows the PUSH time - block out time. How much later than that takeoff will occur is transparent to the passenger.

@RalphJ: why is the answer wrong? Source? PUSH is not an offical time stamp

I work in the industry. Time on your ticket is the time we're scheduled to push back from the gate, also known as blocking out. We'll take off some time after that, but this time isn't on the ticket or any passenger-facing published schedule. BTW, that document you linked doesn't say anything like what your answer says about T/O time being published on the ticket.

If you have a look at http://www.eurocontrol.int/lexicon/lexicon/en/index.php/Target_Off-Block_Time it states, that this is an airline / handling agent estimate. I also know, that TOBT is a commitment from the airline (no source though). What exactly do you mean, when you say industry? Airline/airport/handling agent? Also usa/eu? There are differences.

So here [1] is quite the explanation on all the CDM timestamps. It explains that TOBT is an AO commitment, where AO is the aircraft operator, which may or may not be the same as the airline. Still no relation to times that might be on a ticket. For me this only leaves the explanation, that there is no real relation between the two. There certainly is no standard on how they should be calculated.
[1] http://cdm.frankfurt-airport.com/content/fraport-ag-cdm/en/misc/binaer/documents/a-cdm_procedure_poster/jcr:content.file/acdm_procedure_poster.pdf


text:
Is it okay to ask the Call Sign of the plane to Pilots / Flight crew during boarding?
I sometimes open "Live ATC" app on my iPhone and listen to the "status" of my airplane when I'm taking off until my plane reaches the runway (I know the phone have to be turned off but its exciting to listen to ATC communicating with your pilot). In order to know the status, I have to know the call sign of the plane. If I'm taking off from a small airport, I kinda guess the call sign based on the conversation between the ATC and the pilots and the position of my plane (for example if the ATC says United 220 hold short of Juliet and if my plane is on Juliet, I know my plane is United 220). There have been times when the pilot announces the call sign of the plane before pushback.
My question is, Is it okay or weird for me to ask the call sign of the plane to the pilots / flight crew during boarding.

It's usually the airline + flightnumber for comercial operators.


text:
Is it legal to compensate a CFI for more than 8 hours of his services per day?
A CFI can only log 8hrs of in-flight dual given in a 24hr period (FAR 61.195).  In my scenario, a CFI is required to be aboard a plane to satisfy insurance requirements.  This CFI will put in a 17hr day, all of it in a plane that a non-student customer is flying as PIC.  The customer has a valid medical, is current, and is appropriately rated in category and class.
The CFI might (or might not, he doesn't need the time) log a few hours of dual given to complete a checkout with this customer but then just sit there for the next ~15hrs staring out the window as the ground slides by and the customer racks up the hours he needs.
At the end of a very long day the CFI hands the customer a bill for 17hrs and is rewarded about as handsomely as a CFI can be rewarded.  The CFI walks away with a fat stack of $20s and maybe 3hrs in the logbook.
Has the CFI broken a rule?

The rule says that "In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training.", So if you are billing for 15 hours of CFI time, you would probably have a hard time telling the FAA that you were being a flight instructor and not being one at the same time...

Ok, then no training is logged.  The CFI, or any insurance approved pilot, just sits there.

Suppose something happens 15 hours into the flight. PIC falls asleep (easy to do after you've been alert constantly for that long), a situation develops that the PIC don't know how to handle, whatever. What is the CFI expected to do? What if the same thing happens one hour into the flight? Nine hours into the flight?

PIC may deviate from any rule...etc etc.

Your question is about payment, not about whether the CFI is allowed to work more than a given time. So the answer is you can even pay the CFI when they are not working at all, and any amount, it just has to be agreed by both parties and declared to the IRS. Whether the CFI is allowed to accept a responsibility, whatever the payment, for more than a given time is another question.

@MichaelKjörling - if the CFI is like any normal human being, he'll save his skin and worry about rules later.

@FreeMan Sure, I agree that's most likely what would happen in practice. But if the purpose of having the CFI (or some other insurance-approved pilot) on board is to satisfy the insurance company, then I'm finding it difficult to believe that this person's only task on board according to the insurance company is to be, for all intents and purposes, a warm meatbag. (No offense to the CFIs out there!) Hence my asking about what the CFI is "expected" to do in such a situation, not what the CFI would likely do. Simply, I think this question is missing a major part of what's needed for an answer.

The scope is pretty clearly defined.  An insurance qualified pilot must be on the plane for the customer to fly it.  That's it.

As far as I can tell, it's legal but probably not very smart, at least if I understand correctly that the aircraft renter intends to fly 17 hours in one 24-hour period. A single pilot isn't going to be at his best after spending 17 out of 24 hours in the left seat, which means someone could argue you're violating 91.13. As always, ask yourself if you're confident you could defend your decisions to the FAA.
But if we leave all that aside, I'd say the key question is what exactly the policy requires and therefore what the CFI is being paid for. I'm assuming this is a part 91 flight (and not a fractional ownership operation), and the aircraft only requires one pilot.
The restriction in 61.195 is specifically on providing training:

(a) Hours of training. In any 24-consecutive-hour period, a flight
  instructor may not conduct more than 8 hours of flight training.

If the CFI isn't paid to provide flight training - or at least not more than 8 hours of it - then that regulation doesn't apply. It sounds to me like the insurance company simply requires someone with certain qualifications to be on board and that person has no specific duties.
That means, the CFI is providing a service as a professional pilot. I say "professional" not "commercial" because if he never acts as PIC then he isn't exercising the privileges of a commercial certificate. Of course, if something goes badly wrong (like the acting PIC falling asleep at the controls...) and he needs to take command then he would be acting as a commercial pilot.
All in all, I can't see any regulation (assuming 61.195 doesn't apply) that would stop you paying the CFI for his time as a 'professional passenger'.

This is where I am, too.  I can't see the connection between 61.195 -or- commercial duties and this specific corner case.  17hrs is intentionally extreme, so realistically let's call it a 10hr day (easy to do in a piston SE or ME).  Fractional regs don't apply, it is part 91.

@acpilot There is no connection, as far as I can see. But if something goes wrong I think the FAA will be sceptical that the CFI is really just a passenger and nothing more.

Agree with you there.

I selected this as the answer but am not totally convinced that it is.  Will revisit this if I learn more.

In my scenario, a CFI is required to be aboard a plane to satisfy
  insurance requirements.

This is the important line and you need to reference the policy for the exact wording. I happen to have some quotes from when I was shopping for an M20C about a year ago and here is the exact wording from my aircraft owner policy,

Named Pilots and Additional Pilot Requirements
You are to receive a minimum of 5 hours dual flight instruction in the
  make/model by a CFI who meets all the requirements of the policy and
  receive a written endorsement in your logbook from the CFI prior to
  solo; then 5 hours solo in the make/model prior to carrying
  passengers.

In this case it clearly states that the time is all flight instruction and not simply "CFI present" time if your policy is written this way then its pretty clear the FAR would be broken in your scenario. I think its safe to assume most policies are written this way although if the policy simply states CFI on board then its tough, although I agree with Ron's comment its going to be hard to explain as a CFI that you just "sat there".

The customer only needs 20hrs in a plane and has no intention of buying the make/model or ever flying it again. The CFI (or any insurance approved pilot, PPL through ATP) is literally just a warm body to keep the insurance effective should something happen. I don't see this as dual given (say zero instruction is logged) and it doesn't fit the "commercial pilot" duty scope either because the right seater litrrally never touches the controls.

@acpilot if that is the case it sounds more like safety pilot duties, in which case the second person must be appropriately certified to be a safety pilot. What insurance are you referencing, its mostly comes down to the letter of the policy. Is this non-owned policy?

The plane is owned by a school.  The instructor works for that school.

@acpilot who's policy is stipulating someone else must be on board?  The customers gap policy? The schools policy?  Must they always be on board? Is the pilot unfit for solo operations? (I know there are some situations where you can maintain your license as long as someone else is in the plane)

The school's renter policy.  The customer is otherwise current in cat and class with a valid first class.

Well it depends.  First off the CFI could only bill him for a minimum or eight hours of instruction time per §§61.195, so a bill for 17 hours of flight instruction is illegal under law.
Now if it happened that the pilot undergoing training hired via his own solicitation, the CFI as a commercial pilot could fly him under Part 91 Regs for the 17 hours.  This would have to be understood in advance or through a binding contract, and flight instruction could not take place for more than eight (8) hours during the trip.
While technically legal, this kind of flight is highly inadvisable as the CFI would be severely fatigued after such a long flight, whether he spent it as PIC or not.  There are reasons that Part 121 and Part 135 operations limit their flight time to eight (8) hours in a 24 hour period.

But why?  The CFI is simply existing and not providing instruction or even flying.  The customer does not need or want instruction, only hours.  Let's say the CFI does not log any time at all because a checkout isn't required  How is this any different from a PPL private owner doing the same thing for a friend who needs flight time in, say, that PPL owner's C421?

Because you’re offering your airmanship skills for compensation or hire, which is regulated under Part 61and 91.  This includes, but not limited to, limits of the total duration for flight time for compensation or hire.  You may be able to fly with the guy for 17 hours, but you cannot instruct for that period or fly for hire more than 10 hours.

I see where you are going but I'm not seeing the connection between 61.195 and compensation.  .195 only specifies the number of hours a CFI can work and has nothing to do with compensation (ground bill vs flight bill, for example).  I also don't see how this is commercial flying since there is no PIC acting or logging happening anywhere.  Honestly, I'm looking to be convinced.  I'm planning to write chief council in DC, too.

It also states that you can’t give flight instruction for more than 8 hours in a 24 hour day.  Charging for 17 hours implies you are doing flight instruction or other commercial flying exceeding the limits for crew work.  That’s illegal.

14 CFR 91, Subpart K (including 91.1059) applies to fractional programs and does not appear to apply to the situation in question here. Apart from the 8 hr constraint on CFIs instructing, §91 otherwise places no explicit time constraints on duration of flying for hire. A 10, 14, or even 17 hr commercial flying day could be legal.

So be it.  I guess you could charge him for a 17 hour commercial flight but not for flight instruction.

This is minor, but you may want to update your answer to reflect the fact that unscheduled, two-pilot §135 operations (most jet charter flights) are limited to 10 hrs of commercial flying in 24 hrs. The 8 hrs for §135 is for scheduled flights or unscheduled single pilot flights.


text:
Is a new type of TSA pre-approval required before commencing flight training?
A friend of mine owns a flight school in the states.  A Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) has informed his staff that a new TSA regulation will require all new prospective flight students to meet with a DPE prior to starting any flight training.  That is, every new student will need permission from a government agent prior taking a flight lesson from any flight school (61 or 141).
I would typically dismiss this as nonsense but, considering he source of the info is a DPE, I'm curious to know if there is any truth behind this rumor.
Does the TSA plan to implement rules that require every prospective student to seek pre-approval from a government agent (not just a flight school) prior to beginning flight training?
Current regulations require the flight school, or independent CFI as the case may be, to verify citizenship and retain records.  This can be done in minutes.  The DPE indicates that appointments are required and additional fees assessed for the new layer of government approval.
Say it ain't so!

What possible use is a DPE to determine if a potential student is a possible threat?  That's hardly what they're trained for or expert in.  Since the Department of Transportation (of which the FAA is a part) and the DHS (of which the TSA is a part) are entirely separate agencies, I don't see how "meeting with a DPE" equates to "TSA pre-approval".  Knowing a few DPE's, I would hardly accept their claims about future government regulations as authoritative and infallible -- they have a fairly limited "inside track" in such things.  As described, this all sounds like nonsense to me.

Agree, but the same question can be asked of a CFI.  A CFI certainly isn't trained to identify "bad guys" but they're asked to collect and retain citizenship documents for years.  I'm not saying this makes any sense, just that it seems plausible that an inept government organization would do something like this.

(Answer completely rewritten based on new information)
Does the TSA plan to implement rules that require every prospective student to seek pre-approval from a government agent (not just a flight school) prior to beginning flight training?
Not exactly. US citizens can still start flight training whenever they want. But from April 1, 2016 pre-approval from "a government agent" (the TSA) is required prior to soloing. Foreigners will still need TSA approval before starting flight training.

The final rule on this has now been published in the Federal Register and the TSA will indeed vet all student pilots, as of 1 April 2016 (my emphasis):

This action requires  applicants to apply for a student pilot
  certificate through a Flight Standards  District Office, designated
  pilot  examiner, airman certification  representative associated with
  a pilot  school, or certified flight instructor.  Aviation Medical
  Examiners will no  longer issue a combination medical  certificate and
  student pilot certificate.  Student pilot certificates will be issued
  on the same medium as other pilot  certificates and will have no
  expiration  date. All student pilot certificates issued  before the
  effective date of this final rule  will expire according to their
  terms  unless they are replaced by another  pilot certificate. This
  final rule responds  to section 4012 of the Intelligence  Reform and
  Terrorism Prevention Act  and facilitates security vetting by the
  Transportation Security Administration  of student pilot applicants
  prior to  certificate issuance. This action  withdraws the proposal
  for pilot  certificates to include a photograph of  the individual
  pilot.

But note that a student pilot's license is still not required in order to start training, it's only required in order to solo. So under this new rule, a US citizen can start flight training as usual, but can't solo until he gets TSA approval for his student pilot application:

IRTPA [the Intelligence Reform and
  Terrorism Prevention Act] required that security vetting  of all individuals, including
  pilots, must  be successfully completed by TSA  before the FAA issues
  a certificate.  Therefore, applicants for student pilot  certificates
  must be vetted to receive  their certificates and operate an aircraft
  as pilot in command.

This also means that AMEs will no longer issue student certs, only medical certificates. The FAA expects that processing will take several weeks, which may be an issue for accelerated training programs that aim to get you a full pilot's license in a month or less:

The FAA estimates that the  turnaround time for student pilot
  certificates can be reduced to an average  of 3 weeks or less,
  provided that initial  security vetting by TSA indicates that  the
  applicant is eligible for the  certificate.

There was also some concern that it wouldn't be possible for pilots to solo on their 16th birthday any more because of the processing time, but the FAA specifically addressed that point, essentially by asking students to submit their application well in advance.
On the 'plus' side, the new regulation specifically says that pilots licenses will still not have a photograph (at least for now), which would have added more time and costs to the whole process. And the new student certificates will be plastic, not paper.

Last four words: "or certified flight instructor".

One of the concerns that the question raised was that the new rules would "require every prospective student to seek pre-approval from a government agent... prior to beginning flight training".  Maybe edit your answer to clarify that this isn't really true, since student pilot certificates aren't needed before starting training, but only to solo.


text:
How can opening of a door on small plane cause a drop in altitude?
Last week in Ecuador I was on a flight in a small plane (twin engine prop, full with pilot and 5 passengers). The passenger door opened in flight. I was in a position to grab the door and pull it back to the plane and hold it (against a very strong pull) until I could slam it partially shut and then hold it in place until we landed. It didn't seem like that big of a deal except when the door first flew open the plane seemed to drop about 50 feet. What caused the drop in altitude?

When you say "dropped" do you mean that the nose came down and you lost some altitude or that the plane dropped 50ft like an elevator?  Or did you even feel the drop at all?

Is your question more about the door opening or why the airplane dropped 50 feet? You talked about the former a lot more than the dropped altitude.

Did you notice that the altimeter indication dropped by 50ft, or was this really a change in altitude? Opening a door will affect the air pressure inside the cabin and thus also the altimeter readings of mechanical altimeters.

In an unpressurized plane the door opening is less of an issue than in a pressurized plane but there are still some issues it presents. Its common for planes to have multiple latching mechanisms to try to prevent this from happening. In some cases they system is not perfect like this AD issued for the DA40 relating to the doors coming off in flight (due to improper closing it appears). Being able to run with out a door or open it in flight is even key for things like para-trooping and skydiving

Depending on the orientation of the door the biggest issue I would foresee is the door shearing off and damaging part of the empennage. This could a have serious if not potentially fatal impact on the plane.
Physically speaking the open door will create drag on the plane which may have been related to the decent you felt. It could also have been an inadvertent reaction by the pilot to the possibly loud noise.
On somewhat of a side note, most aircraft doors are oriented in such a way that the airflow will more or less push them shut (on small GA planes/non pressurized planes). Thus most doors open forwards like the ones on many pipers

Or vertically up so gravity will close them (note the baggage hatch). I would assume this is intentional but it may just be coincidence as that is also how car doors open. Along the opening lines, it is standard emergency procedure in small airplanes to unlatch the door before a forced landing incase the accident mangles the door locks.
For what its worth some planes are even flown with the hatch open most the time (pictured on the ground here but flown in the same config)

Here is a nice article written by a pilot about why it would be very hard (basically impossible) to do on a pressurized plane.

You can also use the door of the PA-28 as a control surface to make right turns. - haha

Most car doors open that way for precisely the same reason most light-aircraft doors do (airflow pushing an unlatched door closed rather than open); there's a reason doors that open from the front and are hinged at the rear are called "suicide doors".  Also, the DA40 AD link breaketh.

There can be many possible explanations to the Drop in altitude, and the most likely is being explained below:

Increase in drag due to opening of the door, would result in decrease in velocity of the plane. This would reduce the lift and hence a loss in altitude would be observed. But, as soon as the altitude would have dropped, the pilot would have observed it and increased the throttle to counter that, and hence stabilizing the plane mid air.


text:
How do Throttle control and Propeller control work together?
I haven't been able to understand.
If propeller control controls the pitch of the blades in a constant speed engine, what do the throttle control do?
I've seen (in some normal operation manuals for some planes) that you have a Torque limit and control the Torque with the throttle control, and the RPM with the Propeller Control, but, if the propeller is spinning always at the same speed and the blades are positioned at the same pitch how can the throttle reduce or increase thrust?

In a constant speed prop, the prop control lever basically changes the speed of the prop (it is not always running at the same speed as you indicate in your question, but rather once the speed is changed by the prop control lever, the governor keeps it at that speed). If power (or airspeed) is changed, the blade angle will automatically change in order to keep the prop turning at the same speed (within the limits that it is designed for).
Since adding power would normally increase the speed of the prop, the governor automatically changes the blade angle in order to keep it at the same speed.  The same is true when power is reduced or airspeed is changed.
Thrust is changed by engine power because, even though the prop is turning at the same speed, the angle of attack of the prop has been changed, which changes the amount of thrust.
For more general information about how a constant speed prop works, see this question and answers:
How does a Constant Speed Propeller Work?

First and foremost, speed of the propeller does not govern the thrust it is producing. It only limits it from above. The faster the propeller turns the more thrust it can provide, but it can produce less depending on power the engine supplies. With engine at idle, the propeller produces drag only and at higher rpm it produces more drag.
Next engine speed (and aircraft have fixed gear, so engine speed is proportional to propeller speed) does not govern the power it provides either, but also only limits it from above. The engine can only produce this amount of power per revolution, but if you restrict the fuel or fuel-air mixture flow into the engine, it will produce less. Consider coasting at high speed in a car with gear on. The engine turns at high rpm, because it is connected to the turning wheels, but with accelerator released it does not produce any power and the car is slowing down. The same happens in aircraft. At idle the propeller windmills by oncoming air and cranks the engine, but because that produces no power, the net effect is decelerating.
The throttle restricts flow of fuel-air mixture in the engine and is therefore the main control of engine power. "Throttle" really means the restriction flap in carburettor, so in diesel and turbine engines where fuel flow is controlled instead the lever is called a "power" or "thrust" lever.
So why don't you always run the propeller at the maximum rpm? Higher rpm increases wear on the engine. So usually high rpm is used for take-off where maximum power is needed, then rpm is reduced to recommended cruise value to reduce wear of the engine and for landing high rpm is selected again to increase drag of windmilling to slow down and to have full power available in case of go around.

When you run up the engine before takeoff, you exercise the prop control. At a fixed throttle setting, move the control from "high rpm" to "low rpm". The prop blades will take a bigger "bite" on the air, and even though the engine is still producing about the same HP, the rpm will slow way down. It's a case of torque increasing due to the aero loading, and rpm decreasing because of the torque.
Remember: high rpm = low pitch, and low rpm = high pitch.
The Brits say it a little differently: high rpm = fine pitch, and low rpm = coarse pitch. (This is analogous to a fine or coarse pitch on a screw)

The throttle controls the engine power. In most engines (car, lawnmower etc.) this also controls the RPM. The prop control adjusts the pitch of the prop blades and thus the load on the engine, so the RPM stays the same (hence: "constant speed") but it will fall off speed if there isn't enough power.
And it's a "constant speed PROP", not a "constant speed engine"

So, if I understood, you mean the the drag created by the blades being in a higher pitch makes the engine need more power (throttle) to keep the speed.
Then, why you can have 50% of throttle or more with the same amount of RPM?

@JuanBonnett Let's say you have the throttle at 50% of the available power with the prop control set to 2500 rpm and that is giving you 130 knots of speed in level flight. Now you increase the throttle to 75% of power but you leave the prop control at 2500 rpm. The additional power will tend to make the prop speed up, but the mechanism will keep the rpm at 2500 by increasing the pitch of the prop, which will generate more thrust and the airplane will speed up. Hope this helps.

@Terry loved your explanation, it's simple and made me understand it!


text:
What are the "parts" of a SID procedure?
In the ARINC 424 (downloadable from this link), the following information about SIDs procedures is given in the section 5.7 Route Type (RT TYPE):

As you can see, it appears to me that a procedure is formed by three parts. My questions are the following:

Is a SID made from 3 parts: Runway Transition, Common Route, Enroute Transition?
If yes, how are they related between one another? What is their order starting from the airport?
Could you provide an example from chart that shows these 3 parts?
Is there anything else i should consider in order to put together all the parts of a SID?

I hope my questions even make sense.

Yes, a SID can have three parts as you described. The runway transition defines the path from each runway to get to the common route section of the SID. All runways then share the common route section. After the common route, there may be multiple enroute transtions to get an aircraft on to the rest of its flight plan.
Below is the EPKEE RNAV departure from Denver International with the different sections labeled.

Chart Source: AirNav
This is an example of a procedure with all three sections. The sections will always be in the same order, but a procedure may only have two or one of them. Note that it can be hard to tell from the graphic where the runway transtions end and the common route begins. The procedure also has a description for each runway that describes the runway transtion:

TAKEOFF RUNWAY 8: Climb heading 083° to intercept course 106° to cross
  KIDNG at or below 10000, then on track 106° to PIDLE, then on track
  107° to cross APUUU at or above 14000, then on track 110° to VCTRE,
  then on track 110° to EPKEE, thence. . . .

Even though multiple runways share some sections of the runway transition, they all end at EPKEE. The procedure for Runway 25 tells pilots to expect radar vectors rather than having a defined route.
After WEEDS aircraft can choose the GATTR or DUUCE transitions, or some other waypoint, to begin the enroute section of their flight plan. The enroute transitions are also listed on the chart after the runway transitions.

Thanks for the answer! Very helpful. Is there a source to what you wrote where i can read about it?

You asked the question in terms of ARINC 424 which imposes the constraints of the database structure and use. So I'll try to explain SIDs within that constraint and in the broader sense. The reason for that is that ARINC 424 exists to support the use of an FMS (or an RNAV navigator). But some SIDs don't require an FMS to fly them. The ones that start with "SID" or Vector". FMS SIDs require and FMS (but not necessarily a modern RNAV capable FMS). RNAV SIDs require an RNAV system with the database because they use RNAV waypoints that only exist within the database. A modern RNAV FMS can use any of the SIDs.
For the more generic description of SIDs, I refer to the Instrument Procedures Handbook (FAA-H-8083-16B).
As described there and in 757toga's answer, a SID has one or more runway transitions (the start point) and a route (a sequence of fixes) to the end of the basic DP. For some SIDs, this is the enroute transition. For others, there are additional transition routes that fan out from the end of the basic DP to  multiple enroute transition fixes.
Enroute transition fixes are fixes that exist in the SID and in the enroute system structure (e.g., on the Low Altitude IFR charts).
So back to what you are seeing in ARINC 424. Each of the SID routes is coded in the database starting with the Runway Transition, followed by the waypoints that define the Route and ending at the Enroute Transition.
When entering the flight plan into the FMS, you select the depart runway. You can then insert a SID. If there is more than one enroute transition, the FMS will require you to select the enroute transition. You can then add the enroute portion of your plan.
Since SIDs can cover many environments
What the FMS does with what you entered is to start the plan from a fix on the selected runway with a 'takeoff' leg, typically a FA leg (fix to an altitude) to 400 feet AGL. The FMS then 'strings' in the SID with a leg to the runway transition followed by legs to each of the fixes in the SID route until it reaches the enroute transition. While it does this it adds the altitude constraints to each of the fixes along the route. The enroute portion of the flight plan is then added.
You'll note that "Vector" SIDs only list a Runway Transition and an Enroute Transition as the route will be provided by ATC as vectors. The FMS loads these two waypoints separated by a DISCO (disconnect). It will sequence the runway transition after takeoff and then do nothing while the pilot follows the ATC vectors. When told by ATC, the pilot can clear the DISCO by entering a Direct-To leg to the Enroute Transition fix.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why does a steeper approach cause an increased landing rollout?
A pilot of a high-performance airplane should be aware that flying a steeper-than-normal VASI glide slope angle may result in:
A) a hard landing
B) increased landing rollout
C) landing short of the runway threshold
This is an ATP question and the answer is B. Could anybody explain why the answer is B, not A?

It'll be A) if the aircraft is not flared, won't it.

I'll just formalize my comment here as an answer:
Landing is all about managing the aircraft's energy. When you are coming in for a landing with a steep approach it usually means that you will have more energy (speed) as you approach the ground. A high ground speed as you approach the runway usually means floating and/or, just like in a car, a longer distance to slow down. That extended distance you would need to bring the plane to a stop or slow enough to taxi off the runway would be the extended roll-out. Therefore B is the best answer.
A is incorrect because a steep approach does not necessarily mean a hard landing. The smoothness of a landing is dependent on the pilot knowing the appropriate moment to flare.
C is incorrect because unless the pilot is trying to land short of the threshold a steep approach can be done anywhere over any part of the runway/approach.

Why would you be faster? Is it for safety reason? And is it actually included in typical Vref calculation?

Unless your aircraft has an minimal L/D in landing configuration (including air brakes) such that the increased glideslope results in a higher speed than Vref with engines idle, I see no reason for a higher landing airspeed. As for C, the pilot is following the VASI, which guides the pilot to a fixed point on the runway (excluding flare). Under the assumption that the pilot follows the VASI, they have no choice where to land.

@JanHudec from a pure physical point of view energy is retained. If you descend faster, more energy is converted from potential energy to kinetic energy. The only way to shed that energy is via drag. Drag is depending on velocity. So unless you are pretty fast, drag will not compensate for a larger speed increase.

@Adwaenyth, remember, we are talking about powered approach. If you descend faster, more energy is converted from potential, so less energy is converted from fuel.

@Adwaenyth, also, approaches are generally flown on the back of the power curve. Increasing speed decreases drag! This is because drag has the induced component, which decreases with (square of) speed and therefore there is certain speed at which drag is minimal. Extending flaps decreases that speed, but not below Vref in most aircraft. So you would have to be a lot faster to increase drag and you can't do that, because you must be slow for landing.

Here is a briefing on this topic. A high performance Lancair 360  is used to show that energy state over the threshold is independent of rate of descent on final. Up to 2,000 fpm is possible in the Lancair.  A video link in the brief shows this being demonstrated.
http://www.n91cz.net/Operation/Landing_Energy_Analysis-web.pdf

For a large and very expensive commercial aircraft, deviations from the glide slope as pictured would be potentially disastrous and potentially beyond the capabilities of the aircraft to safely land. One may wish to be right on that glide slope, especially if it was somebody else's plane. These would be go-arounds.
It is unfortunate that the "right" answer may be teaching us the wrong thing, and ignoring basic knowledge of how landing approaches can be flown.
An approach flown at flaps 30 will be steeper than flaps 0 with the SAME airspeed.  The round out will
be sharper, risking stall, however, it can be broken into 2 smaller rounds.  The flare, touchdown, and rollout would be the same.
Really depends on what you fly, each aircraft has its own safe envelope.


text:
Why are airliner cockpits not shielded from lasers?
With the recent increase in laser incidents reported by pilots, why don't airliner manufacturers shield airliner cockpit glass from lasers?
The Abrams tank is shielded, protecting the crew from lasers. Why could a similar process not be employed in airliners?

This is currently being researched and may be used in the future. Example: Airbus to test windscreen anti-laser film

One thing to note is that people shining lasers at commercial aircraft cockpits is a relatively new problem. Second, it's important that things that pilots need to see are not filtered out by cockpit glass, so it is likely a bit of a challenge to design a glass or coating that stops laser light only and nothing else.

The crew of an Abrams is inside a giant windowless metal box.  The crew of an airliner needs giant windows to see out of.

Money aside there is a bit of a practical reason as well. One of the simplest ways to protect against lasers is by filtering it using glass of a particular color, depending on the laser we are talking about red or green glass (and some other colors here and there as well). Generally they look something like this

Coating an airplane windshield in glass of this tint, or a green tint would potentially impair the pilots ability to properly view PAPI or VASI lights which require red/white or red/green differentiation.

It would also cause the pilot to perceive all lights (during a night landing) differently.

I don't feel the researches  look for colored (complementary color) filter attenuation. Glasses seem to exist with notch filters to cut the most usual laser frequencies, and remain otherwise neutral to spectrum.

The issue remains that you would need to cut all possible laser light frequencies and still preserve not only color but light transmission. Remember the more filters you place the dimmer the field of view becomes which could present a problem at night as well even if its all color balanced.

@mins I have experience in notch filters: for a narrow band filter we are talking about 500 USD per square inch [not the unit I normally use!], but I have paid more than 5000 USD for an "unusual" block. A typical pair of laser goggles (with broadband blocking of green+IR) usually sets our lab back about 200 USD. The other problem is that, in our lab, the laser hazards are systematically characterized and we know exactly which goggles to put on when. But every few years a new lasing mechanism is commercialized at a new frequency, and you would always be recoating the cockpit windows.

@mins Also, to reduce the cost, many of these filters rely on "soft" coatings that will simply rub off if you wiped the window.

Yeah, this is the answer. It's not easy to just filter it out without knowing what frequency/frequencies you're concerned with and without significantly impairing the pilots' vision. Even if you know the exact frequencies, filters with enough rejection in the stop band to make laser illumination safe are probably also going to have a significant amount of attenuation outside the stop band.

Perhaps instead of a filter, we should just design airliners to fire a kilowatt-class laser back at the source. :) For repeat offenders, respond with this instead.

@Calchas Aside from dealing with multiple types of lasers you can't simply "notch out" certain frequencies of light and go flying: No filter is "perfect". Cut out say 520nm (green) and you will also cut the brightness of green threshold bars (as shown above) and the green navigation light on other aircraft. Notch out red and the a bunch of approach lights go away. This is only considering looking out the window at night - wearing goggles in the cockpit would cut out colors from a number of instruments/gauges.

@vorrtaq You can obtain filters of 1 or 2 nm bandwidth FWHM that would screen narrow band laser light while allowing the green light from beacons (which is relatively wide bandwidth) to pass through largely unmolested. Although at present this tends to require good alignment between the beam and the window.

@Calchas, Who makes filters of 1 or 2 nm bandwidth FWHM that would screen narrow band laser light while allowing the green light from beacons (which is relatively wide bandwidth) to pass through largely unattenuated? What is the issue with alignment between the beam and the window? Has anyone thought of tunable filers with 1 to 2 nm bandwidth FWHM? Thank you.

@Frank I've used Omega Optical and LOT Quantum Design. I found Omega's filters were ultimately unsatisfactory for my requirements (the filter shape function was not acceptable, I needed as close to Gaussian as possible). The alignment is important because the way these filters work is based on total internal reflection of the rejected frequency between layers of thin film coatings with differing refractive indices applied to the glass substrate.

@Calchas, Thank you for your comment. Please take a look at http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/2670/, Detection of Coherent Light in an icoherent background and comment on whether this paper could applied to shielding airliner cockpits.

@reirab: Not an option anymore, sadly - the YAL-1 was scrapped back in 2014.

@Sean haha, Yeah, I know. You've gotta admit, though, it would make people think twice before aiming lasers at airplanes...

Cynicism ensues.
Because it costs money, there is no regulation requiring it and airline companies probably do not feel it as being an issue because there still hasn't been a hull loss due to it (and thus do not look for it in the aircraft they buy).
It is said that aviation regulations are written in blood, so I am afraid that either we will see a hull loss somewhere, prompting EASA, FAA and similars to update the regulations, or we won't see shielded cockpits in the near future.
Note that I refer to "hull loss" for a reason, there have been already events leading to injuries.

to whom has downvoted, care to explain?


text:
What factors determine where an aircraft can dump fuel?
An aircraft flying over a densely populated area–far away from the sea and mountains–declares an emergency, request fuel dump, and a landing as soon as possible. How does an air traffic controller know where it is safe/possible to dump fuel?

If this is regulated, then by whom or what is it regulated?
If it's not regulated, by what criteria does an ATC use to determine an area for dumping?

If the situation requires landing as soon as possible, the crew usually skips dumping fuel and simply accepts overweight landing. Dumping is mainly for situations where landing soon is not needed, but continuing to destination is not possible.

@JanHudec that's interesting. I've asked a question about overweight landings: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/q/21532/2448

Fuel dumping was regulated by FAA Order 7110.65P - Air Traffic Control, which was canceled in 2006. FAA has the following to say regarding fuel dumping:

...If the need arises, aircraft are instructed by Air Traffic Control to dump fuel at high altitudes as far away from the airport or any populated areas as possible.

At present, there are no hard and fast rules (at-least in US, for other countries, see below) regarding fuel dumping and it is left to the air-traffic controllers to guide the aircraft.
The main criteria in determining an are for fuel dumping are:
-Altitude In general, fuel jettisoned above 5000 ft will vaporize before reaching the ground. Due to this, some manufacturers recommend fuel dumping above 5000 ft. In general, the ATC will guide the aircraft to an altitude where it can dump fuel so that it vaporises before reaching the ground.
-Atmospheric conditions The evaporative characteristics of the fuel dumped depends on the altitude and the atmospheric temperature. The aircraft fuel tends to vaporise faster in a warm day.
-Aircraft separation The ATC will try to keep a minimum lateral separation (~5 miles) between the aircraft dumping fuel and other aircraft and also some vertical separation (~2000 ft, according to Order 7110.65P).
Except in case of safety emergency, the fuel dumping is carried out at high altitudes.
Note: Some countries do have fuel dumping regulations, like Switzerland, which says,

The choice of the dumping area is determined by the urgency of the incident, the actual flight path, meteorological conditions and the general air traffic situation. The aircraft is led to a selected area by the air traffic control to dump fuel. At the minimum speed of 250 knots at an altitude of 6,000 ft, but usually with 350 knots at 14,000-16,000 ft fuel is dumped ... There exist no predefined dumping areas ...

The latest version of the .65 is 7110.65W, which still contains regulations for controlling aircraft that are dumping fuel (see section 9-4-1).

In an emergency, pilots can dump fuel where and when they need.
It is preferred that dumping occur

Above 10000 feet
Clear of towns and cities
Over water
Away from areas where thunderstorms are expected

See CAA Manual (MATS) Part 1

Fuel Jettisoning

13.1 Pilots of aircraft in flight are permitted to jettison fuel in an emergency. The decision to jettison rests solely with the pilot but he may request guidance from ATC.
13.2 When an aircraft in controlled airspace needs to dump fuel, ATC should co-ordinate with the flight crew:
  (1) the route to be flown which, if possible, should be clear of cities and towns, preferably over water and away from areas where thunderstorms have been reported or are expected;
  (2) the level to be used;
  (3) the estimated duration of the fuel dumping; and
  (4) the frequency to be monitored whilst the aircraft is dumping fuel.
13.3 Controllers are to recommend to flight crew that jettisoning of fuel should be carried out above 10,000 feet agl. Exceptionally, if fuel dumping at this level, or over water, is operationally impracticable or inconsistent with safety, fuel may be jettisoned above 7000 feet agl in winter and above 4000 feet agl in summer. For fuel to be jettisoned below these levels the situation must be unavoidable.
13.4 A vertical separation of at least 1000 feet between aircraft should be maintained.
13.5 Adjacent ATC units and control sectors should be informed of the fuel dumping taking place, including co-ordination with units providing services outside controlled airspace where the aircraft’s track is near to the boundary of controlled airspace (both laterally and vertically).


text:
Are there any scenarios that a controller clear different aircraft at the same altitude?
In the real world, are there any scenarios that the controller clear the same altitude or flight level to different aircraft at the same time?

Your question is answered in the link on the comment above on the "Summary" paragraph. Please have a look and if you still have any questions, please edit your post to make it more specific.

Clear and thanks!


text:
Is there any current and/or upcoming technology that alerts Air Traffic Controllers in case of loss of aircraft separation?
Currently doing an assignment and it to analyse an accident where older atc systems could have been at fault. In 1995 there was an incident where two aircraft came closer than the then current separation standard due to an air traffic controllers miscalculation. With new tech such as ADS-B, are there ways the controller can be alerted of possible loss of separations with the aircraft they are handling?

It would help to know what research you have already done. Most ATC systems have a number of safety nets, none of which are based purely on ADS-B (since radar is much more accurate).

@J.Hougaard Radar is rarely more accurate than ADS-B. The accuracy of ADS-B is in the order of 10 meters, the position noise is far less than with radar. The problem is that there are quite a few rogue ADS-B installations flying around. Until they are sorted out, the integrity of ADS-B position data is not sufficient to support most safety cases.

Most air traffic control systems nowaday have various safety net functions built into them. Short Term Conflict Alerting is one of these functions.
Short Term Conflict Alerting (STCA) works on the basis of extrapolating the current position using velocity and turn rate to predict imminent separation violations. If such a imminent separation violation is detected, the system will alert the air traffic controller.
The next level of conflict alering is Medium Term Conflict Detection (MTCD); this is not considered a safety net, but a tool that assists the Controller in detecting conflicts early on (up to 20 minutes in advance). Instead of relying on simple position extrapolation, MTCD uses more advance trajectory predictions that combine knowledge of the current aircraft position and velocity with information from aircraft performance models, flight plan, weather and given ATC instructions.
MTCD development started 20 years ago, and the tool is now being implemented in various ATC systems.

Very interesting @DeltaLima and thanks for your response. I am sure this does help alleviate the controllers workload and keep them on their toes. here is the link for the accident report if anyone is interested.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1995/aair/199501346/

DeltaLima, you probably worked some of the same projects that I did! (I was ZDV's DY)

In the US, ARTCCs have had conflict detection built into the radar data processing system since the  vacuum tube era. It's a bit primitive, being based on current track and speed data (doesn't work well if the aircraft is turning), and it does not make use of route or course information.
We also have a system (URET) that uses actual route information, upper wind data, and aircraft performance characteristics (according to aircraft type) to alert controllers of possible conflictions. The system does not use real-time radar data, however, which can throw off its accuracy. It sits next to the radar position, so it's not "on the scope". It's still a great tool, although, I must admit, I prefer flight progress strips (I'm old).
The best technology I've seen is the User Preferred Routing (UPR) tool (also known as Direct-to), which was developed at the NASA Ames Research Laboratory, initially tested at Denver ARTCC, and later deployed on a test basis at Fort Worth ARTCC.
This tool uses real-time tracking data, upper wind data, aircraft characteristics, holding pattern tracking, and offers on-the-scope functionality for plotting reroutes.
Its deployment status, however is in limbo, and it was removed from field use several years ago.


text:
What data is displayed on civilian ATC radar screens?
I am developping an ATC radar for a simulation.
I don't think there is any standard for radars to show aircraft data on radar screens.
But there should be general data to show on radar screens.
For example:
CALL SIGN
ALT ASSIGNED ALT
SPEED HEADING

Can the data shown be changed on the clients?
Is there a difference between ground radar and air radar displayed data?
Is there any standard or can you give me any examples?

Hello Muzaffer, welcome to Aviation.SE. You may want to search for EUROCAT. It is a European surveillance system standard used across the globe. I don't have any information to share at the moment, but I am sure you will find some things online.

http://www1.metacraft.com/VRC/docs/doc.php?page=the_various_radar_modes
It says TAARS is Based on Eurocat.
I think there is not a standard.

There are a few different ATC Systems and Radar Screens being used throughout the world, so there will be no set standard which applies globally, as vendors and setup differ.
The ATC screen can be adjusted to show what information the controller needs, and some items are universal to all positions being served (Callsign, Speed, Altitude, Assigned Altitude), some items are not required on each position to be displayed on the radar tag (Squawk, Routing, Aircraft Type, Wake Turbulence Category).
Some examples:
Source: www.andreas-milde.de
Source: www.euroscope.hu / Air Traffic Simulation Client
Source: fluglotse.wordpress.com

The data displayed on the client computer depends on the intended use. Different kind of radar displays exist for different kind of Air Traffic Controllers (ATC).
For example: VFR controllers, the ones that generally first comes to mind when we think of air traffic controllers, and who primarily direct traffic by looking outside through the tower's glass panes, work directly on airport fields. To assist them in times of low visibility, they generally rely on airport ground surface movement radar (SMR). This allows them to see a general layout of the airport, along with any moving vehicle, airplane or person. Data displayed includes raw digitized video, which is a graphical depiction of the radio wave bouncing off the object, (the blip we often see in war movies), along with an ID tag containing the object's velocity, direction, registration, etc.
The other other main branch of ATCs are IFR controllers. They work in enclosed buildings across the country, and need not be close to any airports. Everything they see and hear comes to them through radar and radio links. Their radar display clients do not show the layout of one airport, but rather a portion of an airspace they are responsible for, along with any routes and airways that cross them. Weather is also overlayed (cloud and storm formations), so as not to direct traffic in danger zones. Aircraft tags contain similar data, including transponder code, flight plan number, altitude, etc.

You probably mean "tower controllers" for "VFR controllers" and "centre/en-route controllers" for "IFR controllers". While you could apply the labels "visual" and "instrument" to a controller's mode of operation (whether primarily using eyes or a radar display), without further qualification this is confusing, as a centre controller can still work flights operating VFR, subject to airspace rules.